Regarding questions:

feminist-supportive questions still belong in /r/Feminism, but those questioning or criticizing feminism should direct their discussions here.

Regarding direct answers:

Please observe our rule regarding top-level comments: first responses (all top level comments) in threads here should come from feminists and must reflect a feminist perspective, though all such responses can be challenged / debated; for clarifications regarding this, please see below.

Recurring topics:

Please take time to look over these frequently recurring topics before making a new post - identical topics that occur too frequently will be removed by the mods:

When is equality achieved/when has feminism reached its goals?: 1, 2, 3

Recommended feminist texts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. A summary of recommended feminist works can be found here

This is a place to ask feminists your questions and to discuss the issues with feminists. If you've wondered what most feminists think about certain things, what our response is to certain issues, how we think certain things should be handled, or why we have adopted the positions and stands that we have, this is your place to get your questions answered! Or if you have feedback or ideas and would like a feminist response to your thoughts, this is a place to have that discussion.

Posting rules:

Remember to use common sense when formulating questions; inane / insulting / baiting topics will be removed: /r/AskFeminists is not a space to put guilt by association on all feminists due to the actions done by X persons or groups, especially when such actions are in contradiction with feminism or basic common sense. Come with an open mind and a willingness to consider another's perspective, and build some bridges! Please avoid using loaded questions; verifiable sources should be added for claims included in the title/OP.

External articles can be a topic of discussion. The more explicit the question is (the more detailed the self-post is), the better the answers/discussions will be.

The rule concerning direct answers (which should come from feminists, and the answers should to be consistent with feminism) apply to the person posting the thread as well: all the needed clarifications should be made in the original post, which would make them visible to all, and not in the comments. Direct answers must reflect progressive values, in a strict and consistent manner.

As usual, no sexism, anti-egalitarianism, bigotry, hate, intolerance, offensive or antagonistic speech, or off-topic discussion, all of this may be subject to removal. The basic content rules from r/Feminism's FAQ apply, with the following changes in this subreddit:

There is a strong anti-feminist presence on the internet, and reddit is no exception; there is also a large community of trolls out there, who are easily baited into doing disruptive activities in feminist communities - be they mass downvoting, spamming threads or comments with insulting content. As such, we have been forced to take much more defensive measures than many subreddits. It is pretty much a weekly occurrence that we have to deal with. We increased our mod team and we are working in shifts to make sure that the impact is minimal on our community.

Here is how <4 hours of such invasions can look like (this all belong to the same event, same time period):

(I do advise against visiting those particular links, some do contain gore and lots of other reprehensible stuff.)

The amount of troll/contrarian pressure on any feminist community is disproportionate; on reddit itself, I doubt that there are such persistent efforts to disrupt against other type of communities, even ideological ones. I would go as far as to say that (most) even million-plus subscribers subreddits do not have to deal with this.

I hope this will help you understand why feminist communities usually have to face some tough decisions regarding discussions and relevance.

That doesn't answer why many feminist group seek to ban speakers they don't like from speaking on college campuses and why they seek to have voices they don't approve of being taken off air in the media.

That doesn't answer why many feminist group seek to ban speakers they don't like from speaking on college campuses and why they seek to have voices they don't approve of being taken off air in the media.

While your answer may be construed as somewhat relevant to the topic, it does not actually address my comment (which you are obligated to, by our subreddit rules).

But I'll entertain. Some people did choose to protest the presence of some speakers in campus; what you fail to mention is that such protests happen all the time, and it can happen about any speaker; also, if I recall correctly, those protesters identified pretty specifically why they were protesting Warren Farrel, if that is who you are referring to (re his questionable statements about "positive incest", rape, date rape, rape comparisons, and the likes). I am not sure if they happen to self-identify as feminists, but even so, feminist ideology does not require that they shut down speakers. I do hope you are not trying to extend whatever blame they might have to any other feminist, since it would be in contravention of our posting rules here, and also against common sense - and also, I would have some bad news for MRAs in that case, given the many highly objectionable comments made by some MRA leaders.

And how do you feel about those antifeminists that gloated over shutting down a radical feminist convention in London due to their actions? How does free speech factor in there? Did you protest that particular event? Would you go protest in the thread if I give you the link?

And how do you feel about those antifeminists that gloated over shutting down a radical feminist convention in London due to their actions? How does free speech factor in there? Did you protest that particular event? Would you go protest in the thread if I give you the link?

In that case, the owners were being made aware of the transphobia of the radfems, and made the decision they wanted to pull support.

To clarify: transphobic speech is one of the most objectionable type of offenses here, and the other moderators and I will ban for it. The reason I raised that particular topic is to highlight the double standard in how some people treat "free speech".

Should hate speech be protected? I'd think not.

What are you standards for identifying objectionable statements as hate speech? Because that is why some people protested against Warren Farrel - hate speech on his behalf, from positive incest, derogatory remarks towards rape victims, objectionable comments about rape, and the likes.

So I am curious if you find one instance to be hate speech (and I agree that at least some radfems are guilty of that) but not the other (Farrel on rape, positive incest, etc.).

There are plenty of non-feminists in our community, and as long as they respect our posting rules, they are welcomed to continue to contribute. Did you read some of the titles of the 100+ threads above? They are from people who seek to disrupt, not to discuss, I am kind of bewildered if you are coming to their defense.

Perhaps you haven't noticed that your average feminist trying to answer questions on thus sub INVARIABLY has to defend against MRAs making ridiculous, false, and totally unsubstantiated claims about us personally, women, and/or feminism in general. It feels to me like MRAs come here to intentionally dominate nearly all our conversations and thereby force us to talk about their pet issues, regardless of the question originally at hand. It feels like we can't have any discussions which aren't about men's rights specifically.

Don't get me wrong, men's rights issues ARE relevant to our mission, but not EXCLUSIVELY relevant, and it gets really old having to make the same defenses over and over to folks whose prejudices against us are already set in stone and who couldn't care less what we actually have to say, and just come here specifically to try to drown us out and distract us.

And you're complaining that MRAs don't get enough voice on this FEMINIST sub?

Well, seeing as it references some "news item" but nothing is actually linked, making it merely a shell of a post with no actual content whatsoever, I'd say it's extremlely unlikely to generate much interest at all.